It is really senseless and absolute foolishness to use violence for the promotion of the spirit of brotherhood. Yet this is what most of the fraternities in different schools, universities and military academies are doing. In fact De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde student Guillo Cesar Servando is not the first fatality of fraternity hazing. There are many other victims before him who died because of hazing.
To be sure, fraternity-related violence occurs not only in the form of hazing of prospective members within the fraternity. Violence also happens because of inter fraternity rambles like in this case recently decided by the Supreme Court.
The case happened way back on December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 in the afternoon, when seven members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at a canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines in Diliman. Without any warning, they were attacked by several masked men armed with baseball bats, lead pipes, bladed weapons and pieces of wood. The attackers — numbering around 15 to 20 — covered their faces with handkerchiefs or shirts.
Taken by surprise and completely outnumbered, the members the Sigma Rho Fraternity barely had time to react and to defend themselves. They just scampered away from their assailants and tried to take cover. But the attackers ran after them and hit them in different parts of the bodies. In a matter of around 30 to 40 seconds only, the attackers left them. The injured Sigma Rhoans were taken to the university infirmary for treatment. It took a week of confinement before they completely recovered. Unfortunately however, one of them did not make it. He died a few days after the attack.
After proper investigation, their attackers were identified as members of the rival Scintilla Juris Fraternity. Eleven of them were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.
During the trial, the Sigma Rho members identified their assailants. They claimed that they saw their faces because their masks fell off during the scuffle. On the other hand the accused members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity denied the charges and claimed that they were somewhere else when the incident happened.
The RTC however convicted five of the eleven accused for the crime of murder and attempted murder and sentenced them to among other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The five convicted members still questioned these decisions before the Supreme Court. They claimed that they were not sufficiently identified by the prosecution witnesses. According to them, some witnesses testified that they did not see any mask or handkerchief fall off from the attackers’ faces while others testified to have seen other persons whose masks fell off. They thus contended that their guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because there were too many inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims.
But the Supreme Court (SC) declared that the accused were sufficiently identified. They were positively identified because they did not have masks or their masks fell off. It is consistent with human experience that a victim or an eyewitness to a crime would endeavor to identify the assailant so that in the event he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended, said the court.
The court also held that considering the swiftness of the incident, slight inconsistencies in the statements of the victims are expected. As held in the case of People vs. Cabrillas (666 SCRA 174)) it is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice that the others may not observe or remember. The inconsistencies, in fact, show that the testimonies of the witnesses were not fabricated or rehearsed.
On a final note the SC said that: “This is not the first fraternity-related case to come to the court; neither will it be the last. Perhaps this case and many cases like it can empower those who have a better view of masculinity: one which valorizes courage, sacrifice and honor in more life-saving pursuits” (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Feliciano Jr., et al, G.R. No. 196735, May 5 , 2014).
* * *
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com.